Category Archives: Google

OAKLAND, Calif. Google tried to copy Amazons playbook to become the shopping hub of the internet, with little success. Now it is trying something different: the anti-Amazon strategy.

Google is trying to present itself as a cheaper and less restrictive option for independent sellers. And it is focused on driving traffic to sellers sites, not selling its own version of products, as Amazon does.

In the last year, Google eliminated fees for merchants and allowed sellers to list their wares in its search results for free. It is also trying to make it easier for small, independent shops to upload their inventory of products to appear in search results and buy ads on Google by teaming up with Shopify, which powers online stores for 1.7 million merchants who sell directly to consumers.

But like Googles many attempts during its two-decade quest to compete with Amazon, this one shows little sign of working. Google has nothing as alluring as the $295 billion that passed through Amazons third-party marketplace in 2020. The amount of goods people buy on Google is very small by comparison probably around $1 billion, said Juozas Kaziukenas, the founder of Marketplace Pulse, a research company.

Amazon is a fixture in the lives of many Americans. It has usurped Google as the starting point for shoppers and has become equally essential for marketers. Amazons global advertising business grew 30 percent to $17.6 billion in 2020, trailing only Google and Facebook in the United States.

But as the pandemic has forced many stores to go online, it has created a new opening for Google to woo sellers who feel uneasy about building their businesses on Amazon.

Christina Stang, 33, opened Fritzys Roller Skate Shop near Pacific Beach in San Diego last March. Shelter-in-place orders forced her to set up an online storefront on Shopify.

She got lucky. She was sitting on a huge supply of skates when demand surged as skating videos became popular on TikTok during the pandemic.

She linked her Shopify account to Googles retail software and started buying so-called smart shopping ads. Working within an allotted budget, Googles algorithms pick where to place ads and what products to feature. In 2020, she spent $1,800 on the ads, which were viewed 3.6 million times and led to $247,000 in sales, she said.

She considered selling her products on Amazons marketplace, but she worried what Amazons fees would mean for her already-thin profit margins. She also liked that Google redirected people to her carefully curated website rather than keeping them inside its own store, as Amazon does.

I could sell on Amazon and not make any real money but have a bigger online presence, Ms. Stang said. It didnt seem like a great idea.

Recently, however, she has experienced one of the drawbacks of being stuck in the middle of the partnership between Google and Shopify. Her shop has been unable to list any products since January because Google suspended her account. It said her shipping costs appeared more expensive on Google than on her Shopify-powered website, even though they were no different.

Shopify told her that it was a Google issue. Googles customer service representatives recommended that she hire a web designer. She continues to manage without Google, but it has tainted her largely positive experience.

This has completely cut me off at the knees, she said. Im a small business, and I dont have hundreds or thousands of dollars to resolve this.

Sellers often complain about Amazons fees, which can account for a quarter of every sale, not including the cost of advertising, and the pressure to spend more to succeed. Merchants on Amazon do not have a direct relationship with their customers, limiting their ability to communicate with them and to generate future business. And because everything is contained within the Amazon world, it is harder to create a unique look and feel that express a brands identity the way companies can on their own websites.

But since 2002, when it started a price comparison site called Froogle, a confusing play on the word frugal that required a rebranding five years later, Google has struggled to chart a cohesive vision for its shopping experience.

It tried to challenge Amazon directly by piloting its own same-day delivery service, but it shuttered the project as costs ballooned. It tried to forge partnerships with traditional retail giants, only to see the alliances wilt from a lack of sales. It built its own marketplace to make it easier for shoppers to buy the things they find on Google, but was not able to break consumers from their Amazon habit.

Last year, Google brought in Bill Ready, a former chief operating officer at PayPal, to fill a new senior position and spearhead an overhaul of its shopping strategy.

Around the time of his hiring, Sundar Pichai, Googles chief executive, warned senior executives that the new approach could mean a short-term crimp in advertising revenue, according to two people familiar with the conversations, who requested anonymity because they were not allowed to discuss them publicly. He asked teams to support the e-commerce push because it was a company priority.

When the pandemic spurred huge demand for online shopping, Google eliminated fees, allowing retailers to list products for free and walking back a 2012 decision to allow only advertisers to display goods on its shopping site.

Three months after hiring Mr. Ready, Google said the free listings would show up on its main search results. Then Google said customers could buy products directly from merchants on Google with no commissions. It also said Google would open its platform to third parties like Shopify and PayPal so that sellers could continue to use their existing tools to manage inventory and orders and to process payments.

The partnership with Shopify was especially meaningful because hundreds of thousands of small businesses have flocked to the software platform during the pandemic. About 9 percent of U.S. online shopping sales took place on storefronts powered by Shopify as of October, according to research firm eMarketer. That was up from 6 percent the prior year and second only to Amazons share of 37 percent.

Harley Finkelstein, Shopifys president, said Google and Shopify were developing new ways for merchants to sell through Google services, such as experiments to allow customers to buy items directly on YouTube and to display what products stores are carrying in Google Maps.

Mr. Ready walked a fine line when it came to Amazon, which is a big buyer of ads on Google, but he made it clear he believed Amazons dominance in e-commerce posed a threat to other merchants.

Nobody wants to live in a world where there is only one place to buy something, and retailers dont want to be dependent on gatekeepers, he said in an interview.

Google said it had increased the number of sellers appearing in its results by 80 percent in 2020, with the most significant growth coming from small and midsize businesses. And existing retailers are listing more products.

Overstock.com, a seller of discount furniture and home bedding, said it had paid to list products on Google in the past. But now that listings are free, Overstock is adding low-margin products, too.

When all shopping starts and stops at Amazon, thats bad for the industry, said Jonathan E. Johnson, Overstocks chief executive. Its nice to have another 800-pound tech gorilla in this space.

What remains unclear is whether increasing the number of merchants and listings on Google will ultimately change online shopping habits.

BACtrack, a maker of breathalyzers, has more than doubled its advertising spending on Amazon in the last two years because that is where the customers are, it said, while it has spent 6 percent less advertising its products on Google.

It seems like more and more people are skipping Google and going straight to Amazon, said Keith Nothacker, the chief executive of BACtrack.

Read more:

Google Aims to Be the Anti-Amazon of E-Commerce. It Has a Long Way to Go. - The New York Times

Google's Sundar Pichai, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter's Jack Dorsey face Congressional scrutiny over the spread of misinformation on their platforms. Michael Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images/Composite by NPR hide caption

Google's Sundar Pichai, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter's Jack Dorsey face Congressional scrutiny over the spread of misinformation on their platforms.

Support for the siege on the U.S. Capitol. Bogus promises of COVID-19 cures. Baseless rumors about vaccines.

Who should be held accountable for the spread of extremism and hoaxes online?

The CEOs of three influential tech companies Facebook, Google and Twitter will answer that question, and more about how their platforms handle misinformation and its most damaging consequences, when they appear before Congress on Thursday.

It will be the first time the executives testify since some of the same lawmakers in the hearing room were attacked at the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will also discuss whether laws should be changed to hold tech companies more responsible for what their users post, especially when those posts are linked to real-world harm.

Appearing by video, the CEOs will give contrasting views of how they think Internet regulations should be rewritten, with Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg proposing reforms to a key legal shield and Google's Sundar Pichai warning any changes to that law could backfire.

But all sides seem to agree on one thing: new rules of the road are inevitable.

"There is a bipartisan agreement that the status quo is just not working," Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who chairs one of the subcommittees hosting the hearing, said on Monday. "Big tech has failed to respond to these grave challenges time and time again."

Here are four things to know ahead of the hearing:

What role did misinformation on Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube play in the Jan. 6 riot?

Debunked allegations that the presidential race was stolen and calls for violence swirled across social media platforms in the wake of November's election, culminating in the storming of the Capitol on the day President Joe Biden's victory was certified, according to researchers who track misinformation.

Many rioters shared plans and extensively documented the events of Jan. 6 on Facebook, Twitter and Google's YouTube, as well as smaller platforms such as Parler, Gab and the livestreaming service DLive.

Nearly half of rioters charged in federal court allegedly used social media to post photos, livestreams and other evidence of their involvement, according to a review of charging documents by George Washington University's Program on Extremism.

Facebook in particular has been criticized for not cracking down more quickly on "Stop the Steal" groups that were involved in promoting the Jan 6. event, and, more broadly, for how its automated recommendation systems may steer people towards more extreme content and groups.

A report out this week from the nonprofit advocacy organization Avaaz found Facebook groups that repeatedly shared misinformation nearly tripled their interactions meaning likes, comments, shares and other reactions on posts between October 2019 and October 2020.

"We have over a year's worth of evidence that the platform helped drive billions of views to pages and content that confused voters, created division and chaos, and, in some instances, incited violence," said Fadi Quran, campaign director at Avaaz.

In response, Facebook said the report's methodology was flawed and that it "distorts the serious work we've been doing to fight violent extremism and misinformation on our platform."

Members of Congress are also expected to press the companies on what they are doing to stop the spread of false information and debunked claims about COVID-19 and vaccines.

On Wednesday, a group of 12 state attorneys general called on Facebook and Twitter to take "immediate steps" to root out vaccine misinformation, warning it is undermining efforts to end the pandemic and reopen the economy.

What do the companies say in their defense?

The CEOs plan to highlight the steps they've already taken to curb misinformation while also emphasizing that their platforms mirror the problems of society at large.

"Conversations online will always reflect the conversations taking place in living rooms, on television, and in text messages and phone calls across the country," Zuckerberg plans to tell the hearing. "Our society is deeply divided, and we see that on our services too."

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey will describe "a trust deficit" that has grown in the U.S. and around the world in recent years that "does not just impact the companies sitting at the table today but exists across the information ecosystem and, indeed, across many of our institutions."

All three executives' written statements discuss policy changes they've made, from sticking warning labels onto posts that may be false to efforts to connect people with credible sources of information about the pandemic and elections.

For example, Facebook says it has removed more than 12 million debunked posts about COVID-19 and vaccines, as it expanded its list of banned claims. The company also says 95% of the time it places warnings on posts its fact-checkers deem false, people don't click on them.

Facebook has also rolled out changes to how it recommends groups. It's vowed to crack down on those that repeatedly break its rules, after long-running concerns over the role Facebook groups play in the spread of misinformation and radicalization.

Google-owned YouTube said earlier this month it has removed more than 30,000 videos with debunked claims about COVID-19 vaccines since October, and 800,000 videos with harmful or misleading information about the coronavirus since February 2020. It also says it banned 13,000 channels between October and December for promoting violence and violent extremism.

Twitter has also started to crack down on vaccine misinformation, removing false claims, such as tweets suggesting that vaccines are used to harm or control people. Tweets that fall short of the bar for removal such as rumors, disputed claims and incomplete or out of context information are now getting labeled as potentially misleading. Dorsey will also point to Birdwatch, the company's new effort to get users involved in fact-checking.

Do lawmakers really want to impose rules on social media?

Members of Congress have floated a wide range of bills aimed at reining in Big Tech, from beefing up antitrust laws to overhauling Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a key legal shield that protects tech platforms from being held liable for most of what their users post.

"The central message is that the performance that they've shown us to date is largely, much of it, unacceptable," said Schakowsky, who is proposing her own Section 230 reform effort focused on consumer protection. "We are moving ahead with legislation and with regulation."

Zuckerberg plans to tell the committee he supports limits to Section 230, specifically requiring platforms to have "systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it" to earn the law's protections.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. dismissed that idea as "a masterful distraction" at a press conference on Wednesday. Eshoo has introduced a bill to strip the biggest platforms of immunity if their algorithms promote content that leads to violence.

Facebook "want[s] us to focus on putting out fires and not on the fact that their product is flammable," said Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., who is co-sponsoring the bill with Eshoo.

"What we're trying to incentivize is a change in the design of the social networks," he said. "A change in how they use algorithms to amplify content so that we have less spread of extremism, conspiracy theories, inflammatory content that is designed solely to maximize engagement on the platforms."

But the tech CEOs are not united on their views on regulation. Google's Pichai will tell lawmakers changes to Section 230 could have "unintended consequences," by forcing platforms like YouTube to "either over-filter content or not be able to filter content at all."

Twitter's Dorsey has also warned about the risks of changing the law, pointing out that Twitter, with under 200 million daily users, is much smaller than Facebook and Google, which count billions of users. At a hearing in October, he cautioned that some of the proposed changes risk further entrenching the power of the largest platforms.

Republicans in Congress have also called for the overhaul or even repeal of Section 230, saying it's given the tech companies cover for alleged bias against conservatives a claim that's been undercut by research showing far-right content gets some of the highest levels of social media engagement.

What about former President Donald Trump?

After the Jan. 6 riot, all three companies kicked then-President Trump off their platforms moves his supporters and some Republican politicians seized on as further evidence of anti-conservative bias.

Twitter banned Trump permanently. Facebook asked its Oversight Board, a panel of outside experts, to decide whether to reinstate the former president. That decision is due by the end of April.

YouTube also suspended Trump, but CEO Susan Wojcicki said recently that the video site will let Trump return "when we determine that the risk of violence has decreased." She gave no timeline for when that would be, but said the company will look at various signals to decide, including government warnings, what law enforcement is doing around the country, and how much violent rhetoric is on YouTube.

This week, however, Trump teased that he may not return to any of the major platforms. Instead, he may launch his own social media network.

"I'm doing things having to do with putting our own platform out there that you'll be hearing about soon," Trump told Fox News contributor Lisa Boothe in a podcast released on Monday.

During his presidency, Trump pushed hard to revoke Section 230 as part of his long-running feud with tech platforms. If he does launch his own site, however, a weakened or repealed legal shield could leave him on the hook for whatever users post.

Editor's note: Facebook and Google are among NPR's financial supporters.

See the rest here:

Facebook, Twitter, Google CEOs Testify Before Congress: 4 Things To Know - NPR

Google is reportedly working on a new feature for Assistant called Memory, a combination of a to-do list, a notes app, a Pocket-like reading list, and Pinterest-style collection board into a single overarching digital locker integrated into the broader Google Assistant app. 9to5Google first revealed the feature, which is currently in dogfood testing for Google employees.

According to 9to5Google, Memory can save a huge variety of content, including articles, books, contacts, events, flights, hotels, images, movies, music, notes, photos, places, playlists, products, recipes, reminders, restaurants, screenshots, shipments, TV shows, videos, and websites.

While Assistant already has a Memory feature for saving information (like a bike lock combination or a favorite flavor of cake), the new iteration of Memory appears to be a major upgrade, one that seems to integrate the Collections feature that preceded it and be given top billing on the main menu bar alongside Assistants daily snapshot view.

The idea is that youll be able to save nearly anything, including links or screenshots, pictures of objects or handwritten notes, or digital to-do lists or reminders. Memory will then let you search, sort, and revisit everything youve saved.

Depending on what youre saving, Memory will also include contextual information: save a recipe, for instance, and itll show the cooking time. Save a movie you wanted to watch, and itll include a link to the trailer. And of course, Google-based items you save (like Google Docs or uploaded Drive files) will get customized preview cards.

To store things to Memory, users can either use a Google Assistant command or a newly added home screen shortcut. Once added to Memory, saved items can be tagged (with categories like Important or Read Later) as well as sorted or searched to find a specific item.

Memory is still being tested, and Google hasnt announced any plans for when or even if itll receive a public debut. In a statement to The Verge, a Google spokesperson commented: We are constantly iterating and experimenting with new ways to improve the user experience, but we have no further details to share at this time.

See the original post:

Google is testing Memory, an upgrade for Assistant to save and find everything - The Verge

These sensors on my nightstand, under my mattress and on my wrists automatically capture all sorts of information overnight. Im swimming in a sea of datatime in bed, time asleep, time it took to fall asleep, number of disturbances, percentage in light and deep sleep, snoring instances, average heart rate, average breaths a minute. The goal of all this: fix my groggy mornings.

The pandemic has left me feeling perpetually in sleep debt and, apparently, Im not alone. Can any of these smart bracelets, watches, pads or bedside smart displays help me wake up feeling more rested and refreshed?

Sleep tracking has long been offered on wearable devices such as Fitbit but, recently, more gadget makers are entering the bedroom. Last September, the Apple Watch got a sleep-tracking app with WatchOS 7. Googles recently announced next-generation Nest Hub, which starts shipping Tuesday, has a radar sensor designed to measure nighttime movements and even breathing patterns.

The trackers are drawing attention to an often overlooked, yet vital aspect of our health, which sleep experts told me is a good thing. But the doctors and psychiatrists I spoke to also cast doubt on the devices ability to capture certain data, such as sleep stages, accurately, and said people can become easily overwhelmed by the data delugeleading to more sleep-blocking stress.

Most sleep-tracking devices capture the basics: when you fall asleep, when you wake up and how much time between those events you spent snoozing. That sleep duration data is pretty comparable to research-grade devices, says Aric Prather, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, who treats insomnia. Beyond that, every device has its own method and perspective on sleep tracking, including the five devices I tested.

The Apple Watch ($199 and up) takes a minimalist approach. The emphasis is on setting your time-asleep goal and sleep schedule, then holding you to it. The iPhones Health app, which displays average sleep over time, doesnt provide analysis about the quality or length of your sleep. It will, however, nudge you when its time to wind down for bed.

Googles Nest Hub ($100) is a smart display that can detect motion and breathing. Theres no camerajust an onboard radar sensor to capture your time asleep, restless periods, snoring disturbances and other data. The Nest Hub can track one persons sleep, which means if you have a co-sleeper, theyll need their own. And if it picks up snoring, it might not know that its your partner (as it is in my case), not you, who is doing it.

Withings Sleep Mat ($80) is an under-mattress pad that can sense tosses and turns, as well as breathing disturbances, such as snoring or prolonged pauses. It matches the sound of snoring with your respiratory patterns, so it can distinguish your snoring from your partners. Every morning, the Health Mate companion app assigns you a sleep score, based on how well it thinks you slept. You can also dive into other metrics, including how long you spent in deep and light sleep phases.

While all of Fitbits devices can track sleep, I tried the Sense smartwatch ($280). The app shows sleep-phase data and scores your sleep, like the Withings mat. A $10-a-month Premium subscription unlocks more detailed sleep score insights. For example, how your average nighttime heart rate factors into the grade.

Whoop ($18 a month and up) is a bracelet, included in the subscription price, with an optical heart-rate sensor and accelerometer. The app uses resting heart rate and heart-rate variability (the variation in time between heartbeats) captured during sleep to determine how hard you should train each day to prevent injury and illness.

There are numerous other trackers, including the NBA-endorsed Oura ring, which my fellow tech columnist Joanna tested for its ability to potentially predict Covid-19. But, frankly, theres only enough data I could handle this week. Plus, there is such a thing as sleep-data overload.

The formal medical term is orthosomnia. Basically, its insomnia from sleep-tracking devices," said Dr. Prather.

Susheel Patil, a clinical doctor with the Johns Hopkins Pulmonary Sleep Medicine Program, had a patient with insomnia symptoms cure his sleeplessness by removing the Fitbit he was wearing every night. It can be so much data, and we dont know what to do with it. Unplugging can be more helpful," Dr. Patil said.

Plus, seemingly bad" results might not be meaningful. If your tracker says your sleep is fragmented, but you feel fine, its nothing to worry about, he added.

Another concern is the devices accuracy. The gold standard is the polysomnogram with an EEG signature, and everything else is an estimate," said Kelly Baron, director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program at the University of Utah. An electroencephalogram (aka EEG) test, typically conducted in a lab, looks at electrical activity in your brain using nodes attached to your scalp.

I wanted to see how my data might compare with a polysomnogram test, so I sent Dr. Baron one nights worth of my data captured by different devices. Looking at the sleep-phase data from Whoop and Fitbit, she said, The staging data doesnt look much like the stages we would see in a sleep study." (The Apple Watch and Googles Nest Hub dont attempt to discern the different phases, and I hadnt yet begun testing the Withings Mat, which does display sleep-cycle duration.) Dr. Baron pointed to the apps record of a long period of REMaka rapid eye movementtoward the end of sleep, and the small amount of time in deep sleep as unusual, even for a particularly terrible night of sleep.

Fitbits lead sleep scientist, Conor Heneghan, said its devices, which use heart rate to track sleep stages, adhere to clinical definitions of sleep as defined by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, and were validated in labs against sleep studies. Still, he said, wearing a Fitbit isnt as good as going to a sleep lab, but its useful for tracking sleep in the real world, and tracking trends over time." Dr. Heneghan added that wearing the wrist-based device too loose at night will decrease signal quality.

Whoops vice president of data science and research, Emily Capodilupo, said sleep-stage duration is presented to users who may be interested in the data, but it doesnt factor into the calculation of the recovery score. She pointed to a peer-reviewed study, completed at the University of Arizona and funded by Whoop, that concluded Whoops sleep-staging analytics were comparable to results from a polysomnography test.

Of more indisputable value is trackers ability to spot signs of sleep apnea, which is a huge drain on the medical system," said Dr. Prather. Apnea affects a persons ability to breathe during the night, and can lead to excessive daytime sleepiness and other serious health issues. Snoring and fragmented sleep are two symptoms that can show up in sleep-tracker data.

Both the Withings Mat and Google Nest Hub detect snoring and Fitbits CEO said that apnea detection is coming to his wearables. The Google Nest Hub revealed how much my husbands snoring matched up with my restless periods. (Ive worn ear plugs since.)

I found Whoop to be the most interesting, because the app isnt just focused on sleep. It uses my last nights sleep to make recommendations for the day ahead: whether I should go on a more strenuous bike ride or a leisurely walk through the park. But its overkill for people who arent interested in optimizing for athletic performance.

The biggest benefit of these trackers generally is that Im now prioritizing my sleep, instead of merely thinking of it as the bookend to my day. And honestly, you dont need trackers to do the same, and follow the two key tenets of the sleep experts I talked to:

Set consistent bed and wake timeseven on the weekends.

Get seven to eight hours of sleep every night.

Most clinicians, were a little bit guarded about the data," said Dr. Patil. But it at least gives people the opportunity to think about sleep."

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

View original post here:

Google Nest hub, Apple watch and the pros and cons of sleep tracking - Livemint

Once a year, America acknowledges the egregious pay gap in which Latinas earn just 67 cents for every dollar a non-Latinx white man makes. Its time we interrogate this fact year-round. The L-Suite examines the diverse ways in which Latinx professionals have built their careers, how theyve navigated notoriously disruptive roadblocks, and how theyre attempting to dismantle these obstacles for the rest of their communities. This month, were talking with Google alum and founder of Eliment and Company, Eliana Murillo, about overcoming cultural pressures to stay in job, when its time to leave your full-time gig, and setting yourself up for success.

The numbers are in, and women are ditching corporate America. Lean In and McKinsey & Company reported last year that one in four women are contemplating leaving their corporate careers, many due to the challenges of balancing work and home obligations. This number swells for women of color. According to a survey by Working Mother Media, 50 percent of women of color are considering leaving their companies within the next two years and for different reasons than their white counterparts. These Black, brown, and Asian women often find that their race, ethnicity, or accent prevent them from building strategic networks and growing at their companies, as per the study. Wanting more control over their careers and lives and identities that fall under the pressures of code-switching many of these women are leaving corporate jobs and turning their passion projects into businesses.

This is reality for Eliana Murillo. After 10 years at Google, where she founded and led the multicultural marketing team, the Los Angeles-native departed from the tech giant in the summer of 2020 (yep, amid the global pandemic) to focus on her entrepreneurial endeavors. During the day, shes now running Eliment and Company, which works as an innovation venture lab, production studio, and consulting firm for small businesses, content creators, tech leaders, and more. Additionally, shes working on her familys organic tequila business, Tequila Alquimia, which launched in 2007. During her nights and weekends, the Mexican-American businesswoman gives back to Latinx communities, particularly through Latinos in Tech Giving Circle, a movement of philanthropic leaders she co-founded to invest in Latinx-led tech organizations, and Latinas Who Brunch, a social-first network of Latinas she created for empowerment through virtual events and community partnerships.

Story continues

While that might sound like a heavy load (and it is), this range brings Murillo joy. Theres nothing wrong with a stable corporate job, but Ive always wanted to do things in an unconventional way: paint with more colors and mix them in ways that make sense to me. Thats my magic, Murillo tells Refinery29.

We spoke with the tech expert and entrepreneur about the complex decision to leave a revered (and stable) corporate job to forge her own path. From overcoming cultural pressures to stay at jobs that no longer serve you to setting yourself up for success before leaving your full-time gig, Murillo shares her story and offers advice for Latinas still struggling with the resolution.

Knowing when its time to leave corporate

Two significant factors went into Murillos decision to leave her full-time job. The first one was the pandemics disastrous impact on small businesses. I thought about overcoming this challenge, and I wanted to show up and use Eliment and Company as a resource and amplification tool to inspire people and promote businesses as much as we could, Murillo says. The entrepreneurs that she worked with while she was at Google were the ones who inspired her to take the plunge herself, and having more time to dedicate to her own endeavors would increase her ability to support those same small business owners.

The second factor was the rise of the Black Lives Matter protests, which awoke many to the injustice and systemic oppression that has been rampant globally for centuries. Knowing the power and resources that startups and corporations have, she wanted to use existing tech tools and others shes currently developing to help them make a powerful and lasting impact on racial justice issues. I want to make sure that corporate leaders have a plan, not just a statement or one-time donation, and that startup leaders create a culture of inclusivity from the jump, she announces. While I had been doing this work for some years on my own time, I realized that this needed to be more than a side hustle. These projects are currently underway, and Murillo says she will be sharing more on this soon.

While these two historic moments were catalysts, they ultimately emphasized Murillos why for leaving corporate and starting her own business: a deep desire to do more to help her community. Thats why Murillo urges everyone to pause and reflect on their intentions before pivoting careers, which will be beneficial to your well-being. Moments when I felt tired, what would refuel me was reconnecting with my why, she shares. When you know your why, its less easy to get caught up in internal politics or self-doubt.

Setting yourself up for success

Before making the leap, its also important to set yourself up to win. While working her full-time job, Murillo spent her nights and weekends dedicated to the passion projects that would later become her business. As a result, she was able to pilot her venture and get feedback. Seeing the interest in her vision and work from potential clients, Murillo was able to gauge the business before quitting and ultimately see that committing herself to this work full-time could be sustainable.

But thats not the only way she set herself up for success. She also reviewed her finances, a step she says everyone should take before jumping into entrepreneurship. I had saved a lot of money, she says. I knew how long I could go as a bootstrapping founder to self-fund my business and not make decisions from a place of scarcity. I had conversations with myself, asking, can I make this work while walking away from my financial income and my 401k. Surveying her finances also made her mindful of how to start her business. For instance, she knew she couldnt immediately hire full-time employees, so instead she worked with part-time contractors and interns.

Its also important to consider your worst-case scenario. According to Murillo, thinking of the plight could help you see that this decision is not as frightening as you think. If that least favorable outcome is practical, it might actually give you the push you need. When I thought about my worse-case scenario, I realized it was just that Id have to apply for a job again. If the worst-case scenario is where I am now, then it isnt so bad, she says. We sometimes allow these fears to become bigger than they are, but if we think rationally about the worst-case scenario and the best-case scenario, then you realize its a pretty good bet, especially if you tested it.

Overcoming self-doubt and familial pressure

Similar to many Latinx folks or children of immigrants, Murillo didnt want to disappoint her parents with the career switch. So, when her father expressed sorrow after she told him she was considering leaving her corporate job, it made her rethink her decision. As someone who values the thoughts of my parents, which is true for many of us, it was hard to walk away after I made it. I also had mentors who told me to play it safe, Murillo says.

Ultimately, Murillo overcame familial pressure and self-doubt by measuring the likelihood of her success, listening to other mentors who told her she was ready, and trusting her gut. I tested it myself. I had started these projects on the side, and most of it I had done out of love for the work I care about. It wasnt transactional, she says. I had pre-risked this opportunity through these pilots and knew I could do it. I realized I was worth investing in and decided Im the person whos going to take the bet on me.

In less than a year, Murillo says shes running with full force, and the people around her (including her papi) are supportive. Thats why its best to not let others opinions overpower your own.

Honoring all of your dreams

When Murillo started her career, she tried to put herself in one box. She thought focusing on one area would strengthen her skillset and make her more successful. However, there was one problem: she was miserable. What makes me happy is multiple projects and ventures and connecting the dots between them all. I see the synergy across all of them, and it helps me do better at each of them, she says.

Shes not alone. A 2018 report found that 4 in 10 Americans have a side hustle, and 59 percent of that group consider the money disposable income. Many loathe the monotony of their jobs, and sooner or later, they long to start multiple projects at once. If that sounds like you, Murillo thinks youre capable, and ultimately should honor all of your dreams you just have to do it with intention and care. This will not only allow you to invest in the projects wholly but also prevent you from burning out. A mentor once told me, You can do many things. Just do them all with love. I realized giving something you love the real love and care it deserves is critical, advises Murillo. Thats why the Google alum dedicates a different day of the week to a particular project or venture, ensuring that it has her full attention instead of living in a juggling act:I know I can do it all, just not all at the same time.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Here is the original post:

Knowing When Its Time To Leave Your Job, According To A Google Alum - Yahoo Finance

Amir Glatt is the CTO and co-founder of Duda, a leading white-label web design platform for agencies, SaaS platforms and other web professionals that serve small businesses. Prior to co-founding Duda, Amir worked in SAP, the world's largest maker of business applications.

One year.

Thats how long Google gave developers to start implementing required changes to improve user experience. In early May 2020, Google published a modest post on one of its developer blogs introducing Core Web Vitals a set of metrics that will result in major changes to the way websites are ranked by the search engine. In May 2021, Google will officially add those Core Web Vitals to the various other page experience signals it analyzes when deciding how to rank websites.

The quest to improve a websites position in search results has spawned hundreds (if not thousands) of how-to articles over the years. Businesses that are scared about taking a hit to SEO from Googles new metrics have been pushing developers to optimize company websites. At the same time, developers have been frustrated because theres a lot that goes into user experience that isnt reflected in the Core Web Vitals. A lot of details have to be juggled.

But what about the startups, tech companies and small business owners who handle their own websites in-house? What about the agencies and enterprise platforms that manage or host hundreds or even thousands of websites for clients? While many are looking at the Core Web Vitals as a big hoop to jump through to please the search powers that be, others are seeing and seizing the opportunities that come along with this change.

Small businesses wondering Whats in it for me? should recognize that if all other things are equal, optimizing for the Core Web Vitals is going to be a significant tiebreaker between websites. If a companys site is ranking really well with these rigorous metrics, it will have an edge against competitors in searches when content and ranking are otherwise comparable.

Aside from improved SEO, small business websites optimizing for the new metrics will reap the rewards of an improved user experience for their site visitors. Internet users frequently complain about long wait times as pages are loading, or problems with an entire page shifting just as the user goes to click a specific button which results in them clicking the wrong button and causing further delays. For online retail websites, a poor user experience leads to lost revenue as users abandon shopping carts and never return to a site. Once the Core Web Vitals go into effect, companies that have made the efforts to provide smooth and speedy performance for visitors will win out against competitors that retain sluggish designs.

More here:

Staying ahead of the curve on Google's Core Web Vitals - TechCrunch

Bloomberg

(Bloomberg) -- From his perch high above Midtown Manhattan, just across from Carnegie Hall, Bill Hwang was quietly building one of the worlds greatest fortunes.Even on Wall Street, few ever noticed him -- until suddenly, everyone did.Hwang and his private investment firm, Archegos Capital Management, are now at the center of one of the biggest margin calls of all time -- a multibillion-dollar fiasco involving secretive market bets that were dangerously leveraged and unwound in a blink.Hwangs most recent ascent can be pieced together from stocks dumped by banks in recent days -- ViacomCBS Inc., Discovery Inc. GSX Techedu Inc., Baidu Inc. -- all of which had soared this year, sometimes confounding traders who couldnt fathom why.One part of Hwangs portfolio, which has been traded in blocks since Friday by Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo & Co., was worth almost $40 billion last week. Bankers reckon that Archegoss net capital -- essentially Hwangs wealth -- had reached north of $10 billion. And as disposals keep emerging, estimates of his firms total positions keep climbing: tens of billions, $50 billion, even more than $100 billion.It evaporated in mere days.Ive never seen anything like this -- how quiet it was, how concentrated, and how fast it disappeared, said Mike Novogratz, a career macro investor and former partner at Goldman Sachs whos been trading since 1994. This has to be one of the single greatest losses of personal wealth in history.Late Monday in New York, Archegos broke days of silence on the episode.This is a challenging time for the family office of Archegos Capital Management, our partners and employees, Karen Kessler, a spokesperson for the firm, said in an emailed statement. All plans are being discussed as Mr. Hwang and the team determine the best path forward.The cascade of trading losses has reverberated from New York to Zurich to Tokyo and beyond, and leaves myriad unanswered questions, including the big one: How could someone take such big risks, facilitated by so many banks, under the noses of regulators the world over?One part of the answer is that Hwang set up as a family office with limited oversight and then employed financial derivatives to amass big stakes in companies without ever having to disclose them. Another part is that global banks embraced him as a lucrative customer, despite a record of insider trading and attempted market manipulation that drove him out of the hedge fund business a decade ago.A disciple of hedge-fund legend Julian Robertson, Sung Kook Bill Hwang shuttered Tiger Asia Management and Tiger Asia Partners after settling an SEC civil lawsuit in 2012 accusing them of insider trading and manipulating Chinese banks stocks. Hwang and the firms paid $44 million, and he agreed to be barred from the investment advisory industry.He soon opened Archegos -- Greek for one who leads the way -- and structured it as a family office.Family offices that exclusively manage one fortune are generally exempt from registering as investment advisers with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. So they dont have to disclose their owners, executives or how much they manage -- rules designed to protect outsiders who invest in a fund. That approach makes sense for small family offices, but if they swell to the size of a hedge fund whale they can still pose risks, this time to outsiders in the broader market.This does raise questions about the regulation of family offices once again, said Tyler Gellasch, a former SEC aide who now runs the Healthy Markets trade group. The question is if its just friends and family why do we care? The answer is that they can have significant market impacts, and the SECs regulatory regime even after Dodd-Frank doesnt clearly reflect that.Valuable CustomerArchegos established trading partnerships with firms including Nomura Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank AG and Credit Suisse Group AG. For a time after the SEC case, Goldman refused to do business with him on compliance grounds, but relented as rivals profited by meeting his needs.The full picture of his holdings is still emerging, and its not clear what positions derailed, or what hedges he had set up.One reason is that Hwang never filed a 13F report of his holdings, which every investment manager holding more than $100 million in U.S. equities must fill out at the end of each quarter. Thats because he appears to have structured his trades using total return swaps, essentially putting the positions on the banks balance sheets. Swaps also enable investors to add a lot of leverage to a portfolio.Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, for instance, are listed as the largest holders of GSX Techedu, a Chinese online tutoring company thats been repeatedly targeted by short sellers. Banks may own shares for a variety of reasons that include hedging swap exposures from trades with their customers.Unhappy InvestorsGoldman increased its position 54% in January, according to regulatory filings. Overall, banks reported holding at least 68% of GSXs outstanding shares, according to a Bloomberg analysis of filings. Banks held at least 40% of IQIYI Inc, a Chinese video entertainment company, and 29% of ViacomCBS -- all of which Archegos had bet on big.Im sure there are a number of really unhappy investors who have bought those names over the last couple of weeks, and now regret it, Doug Cifu, chief executive officer of electronic-trading firm Virtu Financial Inc., said Monday in an interview on Bloomberg TV. He predicted regulators will examine whether there should be more transparency and disclosure by a family office.Without the need to market his fund to external investors, Hwangs strategies and performance remained secret from the outside world. Even as his fortune swelled, the 50-something kept a low profile. Despite once working for Robertsons Tiger Management, he wasnt well-known on Wall Street or in New York social circles.Hwang is a trustee of the Fuller Theology Seminary, and co-founder of the Grace and Mercy Foundation, whose mission is to serve the poor and oppressed. The foundation had assets approaching $500 million at the end of 2018, according to its latest filing.Its not all about the money, you know, he said in a rare interview with a Fuller Institute executive in 2018, in which he spoke about his calling as an investor and his Christian faith. Its about the long term, and God certainly has a long-term view.His extraordinary run of fortune turned early last week as ViacomCBS Inc. announced a secondary offering of its shares. Its stock price plunged 9% the next day.The value of other securities believed to be in Archegos portfolio based on the positions that were block traded followed.By Thursdays close, the value of the portfolio fell 27% -- more than enough to wipe out the equity of an investor who market participants estimate was six to eight times levered.Its also hurt some of the banks that served Hwang. Nomura and Credit Suisse warned of significant losses in the wake of the selloff and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. has flagged a potential $300 million loss.You have to wonder who else is out there with one of these invisible fortunes, said Novogratz. The psychology of all that leverage with no risk management, its almost nihilism.(Updates with latest bank to detail exposure in penultimate paragraph.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.2021 Bloomberg L.P.

See the original post here:

Google's new alliance wants to get digital keys, mobile IDs working on Android - Yahoo Tech

Cathie Woods Ark Investment Management sends out an email every night listing the stocks that were bought or sold by the firm's ETFs that day. In recent months, the emails have known to cause certain stocks to see a spike in the after-hours session. Heres a list of 39 stocks that the hedge fund bought and sold on Thursday.

Trades For Ark Fintech Innovation ETF (NYSE: ARKF):

Opendoor Technologies Inc (NASDAQ: OPEN): Bought 468,600 shares of the online real estate company, representing about 0.25% of the ETF.

Opendoor stock closed 2.35% higher at $23.04 on Thursday and were down 0.65% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $39.24 and low of $10.55.

Amazon.com Inc (NASDAQ: AMZN): Sold 3,571 shares of the global e-commerce giant, representing about 0.28% of the ETF.

Amazon.com stock closed 1.32% lower at $X on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $3,552.25 and low of $1,885.78.

Alibaba Group Holdings (NYSE: BABA): Sold 51,402 shares of the ABC company, representing about 0.29% of the ETF.

Alibaba stock closed 2.99% lower at $222.72 on Thursday and were up 0.96% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $319.32 and low of $184.5.

Tencent Holdings (OTC: TCEHY): Sold 78,519 shares of the ABC company, representing about 0.16% of the ETF.

Tencent stock closed 0.79% higher at $77.42 on Thursday and was further up 0.31% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $99.40 and low of $46.98.

Trades For Ark Genomic Revolution ETF (NYSE: ARKG)

Signify Health Inc (NYSE: SGFY): Bought 68,499 shares of the healthcare tech company, representing about 0.19% of the ETF.

Signify stock closed 13.3% higher at $27.52 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $40.79 and low of $22.13.

Seer Inc (NASDAQ: SEER): Bought 77,391 shares of the life sciences company, representing about 0.04% of the ETF.

Seer stock closed 8.14% lower at $41.74 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $86.55 and low of 38.37.

Schrodinger Inc (NASDAQ: SDGR): Bought 112,514 shares of the life sciences and materials science company, representing about 0.08% of the ETF.

Story continues

Schrodinger stock closed 3.61% lower at $69.43 on Thursday and surged 0.79% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $117 and low of $35.80.

Repare Therapeutics Inc (NASDAQ: RPTX): Bought 1,028 shares of the Canadian oncology company, representing about 0.0003% of the ETF.

Repare stock closed 6.07% higher at $30.05 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $46.44 and low of $21.45.

Teladoc Health Inc (NYSE: TDOC): Bought 80,118 shares of the telemedicine company, representing about 0.15% of the ETF.

Teladoc stock closed 3.2% lower at $176.16 on Thursday and were up 0.82% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of 308 and low of $134.12.

Butterfly Network Inc (NYSE: BFLY): Bought 127,800 shares of the ultrasound tech company, representing about 0.02% of the ETF.

Butterfly stock closed 2.6% lower at $18 on Thursday and were up 0.83% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $29.13 and low of $9.34.

Adaptive Biotechnology Corp (NASDAQ: ADPT): Bought 180,617 shares of the life sciences company, representing about 0.0756% of the ETF.

Adaptive stock closed 0.78% lower at $38.68 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $71.25 and low of $22.47.

Vertex Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ: VRTX): Sold 102,956 shares of the biopharma company, representing about 0.23% of the ETF.

Vertex stock closed 0.39% lower at $212.36 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $306.08 and low of $202.56.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co (NYSE: TAK): Sold 113,025 shares of the Japanese pharma company, representing about 0.024% of the ETF.

Takeda stock closed 0.16% lower at $19.23 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $20 and low of $14.46.

Roche Holding (OTC: RHHBY): Sold 36,861 shares of the Swiss healthcare company, representing about 0.01% of the ETF.

Roche stock closed marginally lower at $40.65 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $47.15 and low of $36.42.

Trades For Ark Innovation ETF (NYSE: ARKK)

Teladoc Health Inc (NYSE: TDOC): Bought 180,692 shares of the telemedicine company, representing about 0.15% of the ETF.

Teladoc stock closed 3.2% lower at $176.16 on Thursday and was up 0.82% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of 308 and low of $134.12.

Unity Software Inc (NYSE: U): Bought 200,700 shares of the video game software development company, representing about 0.0844% of the ETF.

Unity stock closed 1.97% lower at $90.88 on Thursday and surged 0.35% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $174.94 and low of $65.11.

Palantir Technologies Inc (NYSE: PLTR): Bought 783,500 shares of the big data analytics company, representing about 0.791% of the ETF.

Palantir stock closed 3.20% higher at $22.58 on Thursday and surged 0.53% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $45 and low of $8.90.

Zillow Group Inc (NASDAQ: ZG): Bought 148,542 shares of the online real estate marketplace company, representing about 0.0847% of the ETF.

Zillow stock closed 1.4% lower at $131.35 on Thursday and was up 0.49% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $212.40 and low of $28.26.

Zoom Video Communications Inc (NASDAQ: ZM): Bought 50,395 shares of the video calling company, representing about 0.0734% of the ETF.

Zoom stock closed 0.04% lower at $314.85 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $588.84 and low of $108.53.

Fate Therapeutics (NASDAQ: FATE): Bought 306,976 shares of the clinical-stage biotech company, representing about 0.1075% of the ETF.

Fate stock closed 4.22% lower at $78.52 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $121.16 and low of $19.80.

Beam Therapeutics (NASDAQ: BEAM): Bought 122,367 shares of advanced genetic medicines innovator, representing about 0.0469% of the ETF.

Beam stock closed 3.08% higher at $83.34 on Thursday and was further up 1.69% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $126.90 and low of $14.80.

Sea Ltd (NYSE: SE): Bought 100,684 shares of the internet and mobile platform company, representing about 0.0926%% of the ETF.

Sea stock closed 2.59% higher at $202.6 on Thursday and was further up 0.59% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $285 and low of $40.41.

Tencent Holdings Ltd (OTC: TECHY): Sold 307,283 shares of Chinese multinational company, representing about 0.1102% of the ETF.

Tencent stock closed 0.79% higher at $77.42 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $99.40 and low of $46.98.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc (NASDAQ: REGN): Sold 27,672 shares of the biotech company, representing about 0.06% of the ETF.

Regeneron stock closed 0.69% higher at $463.48 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $664.64 and low of $424.02.

Paypal Holdings Inc (NASDAQ: PYPL): Sold 309,932 shares of the online payment company, representing about 0.33% of the ETF.

Paypal stock closed 0.01% lower at $234.24 on Thursday and rose 0.11% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $309.14 and low of $89.88.

Pure Storage Inc (NYSE: PSTG): Sold 434,179 shares of the flash data storage company, representing about 0.0412% of the ETF.

Pure stock closed 1.24% higher at $21.15 on Thursday and was down 1.65% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $29.53 and low of $10.54.

Paccar Inc (NASDAQ: PCAR): Sold 134,000 shares of the truck maker, representing about 0.0564% of the ETF.

Paccar stock closed 1.27% higher at $92.27 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $103.19 and low of $55.93.

Novartis AG (NYSE: NVS): Sold 71,063 shares of the pharma company, representing about 0.0287% of the ETF.

Novartis stock closed 1.37% higher at $87.21 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $98.52 and low of $74.3.

Trades for ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF (NYSE: ARKQ)

Jaws Spitfire Acquisition Corp (NYSE: SPFR): Bought 68,100 shares of the blank check company, representing about 0.217% of the ETF.

Jaws stock closed 0.5% higher at $10.20 on Thursday and surged 0.98% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $12.10 and low of $9.95.

Baidu Inc (NASDAQ: BIDU): Bought 31,505 shares of the Chinese internet company, representing about 0.2048% of the ETF.

Baidu stock closed 14.5% lower at $204.57 on Thursday and was up 2.65% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $354.8 and low of $90.94.

Alphabet Inc (NASDAQ: GOOGL): Sold 3,088 shares of the Google parent company, representing about 0.197% of the ETF.

Alphabet stock closed marginally lower at $2032.46 on Thursday and were up 0.37% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $2145.14 and low of $1075.08.

Trades For ARK Next Generation Internet ETF (NYSE: ARKW):

Skillz Inc (NYSE: SKLZ): Bought 745,700 shares of the online mobile gaming company, representing about 0.2108% of the ETF.

Skillz stock closed 3.25% lower at $19.34 on Thursday and was up 2.28% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $46.30 and low of $9.8.

Opendoor Technologies Inc (NASDAQ:: OPEN): Bought 453,600 shares of the online real estate company, representing about 0.15% of the ETF.

Opendoor stock closed 2.35% higher at $23.04 on Thursday and was down 0.65% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $39.24 and low of $10.55.

Baidu Inc (NASDAQ: BIDU): Bought 32,600 shares of the Chinese internet company, representing about 0.1% of the ETF.

Baidu stock closed 14.5% lower at $204.57 on Thursday and was up 2.65% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $354.8 and low of $90.94.

Teladoc Health Inc (NYSE: TDOC): Bought 58,186 shares of the telemedicine company, representing about 0.1518% of the ETF.

Teladoc stock closed 3.2% lower at $X176.16 on Thursday and was up 0.82% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of 308 and low of $134.12.

Mercadolibre Inc (NASDAQ: MELI): Sold 6765 shares of the Argentine online marketplace company, representing about 0.14% of the ETF.

Mercadolibre stock closed 1.06% higher at $1402.50 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $2020 and low of $435.04.

Intercontinental Exchange Inc (NYSE: ICE): Sold 120,362 shares of the global exchange company, representing about 0.2% of the ETF.

Intercontinental stock closed 0.29% lower at $112.28 on Thursday. It has a 52-week high of $119 and low of $72.51.

Paypal Holdings Inc (NASDAQ: PYPL): Sold 56,687 shares of the online payment company, representing about 0.19% of the ETF.

Paypal stock closed 0.01% lower at $234.24 on Thursday and rose 0.11% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $309.14 and low of $89.88.

Roku Inc (NASDAQ: ROKU): Sold 42,662 shares of the television streaming platform company, representing about 0.2% of the ETF.

Roku stock closed 0.26% lower at $317.62 on Thursday and was up 0.35% in the after-hours. It has a 52-week high of $486.7 and low of $79.38.

See more from Benzinga

2021 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

The rest is here:

Alibaba, Amazon, Palantir, Google, Takeda, Unity What Cathie Wood's Ark Bought And Sold On Thursday - Yahoo Finance

Google is bringing its real-time captioning feature, Live Caption, to its Chrome browser.

Google took to its Keyword blog to discuss the feature's arrival, which is available now. First introduced for Google's Pixel smartphone line, it utilizes machine learning to generate captions for most videos online, including podcasts and phone calls. While useful for anyone who prefers to watch videos with the sound off, Live Caption is especially useful for those with hearing difficulties.

With Live Caption, I no longer have to miss out on watching videos because of lack of captions, and I can engage in real-life conversations with family, friends or colleagues about this content," software engineer Laura D'Aquila, who's hard of hearing, said of her experience with Live Caption. "Just recently, my coworker sent a video to our team's chat, but it was not captioned. With Live Caption I was able to follow along and share my reactions to the video with my team.

Google generates captions straight from the device you're using, so captions will pop up as the content plays. You don't need an internet connection for it to do so, either. It will work across a wide variety of content online and offline, which makes it a versatile accessibility option. It's also a great tool for anyone who wishes to keep their media muted while working or multitasking so they can keep up.

Live Caption is available now across the latest versions of Chrome on Windows, Mac, and Linux. It'll be available for Chromebooks with Chrome OS soon. To toggle it on, go to Chrome Settings, click Advanced, and then click Accessibility.

Read the original here:

Google Brings Its Live Caption Feature to Chrome - PCMag

This article is part of the On Tech newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it weekdays.

Did the U.S. government miss opportunities to rein in Google? Five months ago, I posed that question in this newsletter. Newly revealed documents suggest that the answer is yes.

On Tuesday, Politico published articles based on previously unseen internal memos from an Obama-era government investigation into whether Google abused its power to quash competition and hurt Americans. The Federal Trade Commission concluded in early 2013 that Googles behavior didnt break the law. However, the company agreed to change some of its business practices.

Reading the documents with the benefit of hindsight, I was struck that investigators saw red flags in Googles behavior, but were divided over whether they should or could do anything about it. Currently, three antitrust lawsuits are pending against Google, and the government now cites some of the same warning signs the investigators saw as evidence of the companys illegal monopoly power.

Could the downside of Googles influence over online advertising and digital information been avoided if the government had put more guardrails on areas of behavior that some people at the F.T.C. had found worrisome nearly a decade ago?

Let me walk through three points or questions I have from this trove of Google documents:

The roots of current cases against Google:

Of the three antitrust lawsuits now pending against Google, Ill focus on two: First, the Department of Justice says that Google used business deals with Apple and Android smartphone companies to cement its hold on our digital lives. And a group of U.S. state attorneys general claimed that Google hobbled online specialists in areas like home repair services and travel reviews.

The funny thing about the current government lawsuits is that much of the behavior is old news. Not everything. But a lot. That was clear before, but the F.T.C. documents made that undeniable. (The Wall Street Journal also got part of one of these documents in 2015.)

The Politico documents show fear within the F.T.C. in 2012 that Google would use its money and power to ensure that its search box had a prominent position on smartphones and expand its digital dominance. Thats essentially what the U.S. government (and the European Union) now say that Google did. Google has said the governments claims have no merit.

And based on interviews and emails from executives at Google and other companies, government staffers found that Google promoted its own products and in some cases demoted identical online information from competitors because it helped Googles bottom line. Again, thats a behavior at the heart of one of the state lawsuits.

In a blog post, Google said the documents backed up the companys view that its behavior most likely benefited consumers.

What if?

I wondered what might have been if Uncle Sam had made different choices nearly a decade ago and many times before and since.

What if in 2012 the F.T.C. economists hadnt downplayed the possibility that Google could use money and coercion to lock in its power on smartphones? Would a different choice by the agency have changed the direction of the smartphone industry and the internet? Would you be reading this newsletter on your Amazon or Mozilla phone, and would that be an improvement?

Nearly a decade ago, some members of the F.T.C. staff were disturbed to find that Google pulled information from websites including Amazon, TripAdvisor and Yelp even when those companies demanded it stop to make its own web search results more compelling. The staff wrote that the behavior signaled to everyone on the internet that Google could do whatever it liked.

What if the government had sought then to stop Googles bullying? Similarly, what if the government had forced Google to open its search results to outsiders? Today, if you search for Niagara Falls hotels or a pediatrician nearby, Google mostly shows information it has collected, rather than listings from TripAdvisor and ZocDoc, which may be more helpful. U.S. government staff were concerned about that behavior, too.

Those choices led to the internet we have today. Its one in which Google has made itself the first and last stop for many internet searches. In an alternate history, maybe wed have more and better online options.

Is it pointless to play what if?

Wishing for a different internet doesnt mean the government should twist the law to make it happen.

The Politico documents show that people at the F.T.C. in 2012 believed that the law wasnt on the governments side in some cases, or that what Google was doing might have squashed rivals but also made search results and the web better for us. The same might be true today.

The F.T.C. staff members also arent soothsayers who could have predicted how online competition would turn out.

With the benefit of hindsight, though, it is hard not to wonder how the internet economy might be different and less dominated by giants today if the government had sought to change Googles business practices then.

A middle ground on Uber drivers contractor status: Uber and similar gig economy companies have fought efforts to make them treat their couriers as conventional employees. My colleague Adam Satariano writes that Uber retreated from a hard line stance in Britain after losing a major legal case and will provide drivers in the country a minimum wage, vacation pay and some other benefits.

What happens to virtual learning tech? My colleague Natasha Singer writes about the technologies for remote learning that might stick around when in-person education returns widely.

Wikipedia wants to get paid: Wired reported on Wikipedia trying to keep a free option for most of us and create a paid version for commercial users like Google.

How did I not know about Squishmallows before now?! My colleague Taylor Lorenz dug into the brightly colored stuffed animal/pillow type things that people collect, display and hug.

We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else youd like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com.

If you dont already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here.

Go here to read the rest:

What the U.S. Missed With Google - The New York Times